Letters -- Published Feb. 20, 2013

Wednesday

Feb 20, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Hooray for democracy in action. Those affected by the proposed $37 million floodgate across Smith Canal will get a chance to vote on it. Let's hope all the facts are clearly presented to the voters and that alternatives get some attention at the "public outreach meetings."

Hooray for democracy in action. Those affected by the proposed $37 million floodgate across Smith Canal will get a chance to vote on it. Let's hope all the facts are clearly presented to the voters and that alternatives get some attention at the "public outreach meetings."

For starters, we need to see the FEMA flood map showing who is in and out of the flood zone, and who will be required to carry flood insurance regardless of how the vote goes. Another useful map would be one showing the entire urban watershed for Smith Canal, since while San Joaquin River water comes in on the tide from the west, storm water drains in from the other three directions every time it rains.

I expect there will be a thorough environmental impact study. Already the price tag has jumped $7 million to mitigate degradation of water quality in the canal after the gate is installed.

There also needs to be a cost/benefit analysis presented to the voters. In 2008, when this project was first proposed, the estimated cost was $10 million. Now it is up to $37 million. These increases need to be explained and a realistic estimate of the total cost of the project presented.

There also needs to be a thorough explanation of the recent 18 percent increase in the price of basic flood insurance, as well as an explanation of the wild speculation of increases from $1,500 to $5,000 per year.

The voters need an honest appraisal of the risks of flooding in our area. Only when all these conditions have been satisfied will the voters be able to make an informed decision.

By the way, a public hearing to be held 9 a.m. June 5 will automatically exclude a certain percentage of working people from attending. Public meetings need to be held in the evenings.

William Maxwell

Stockton

Two things bothered me about The Record's Feb. 6 edition. One, in Michael Fitzgerald's column, "Teacher dismissal process long, costly," we do not get teacher Heidi Kaeslin's side. We do get Fitz's kangaroo court assuming a person's guilt without real investigation. Nice touch posting a photo of the person you select to hang.

I have not met nor do I know Kaeslin, but I do know that our school districts are full of nasty politics and corruption, and that people are often railroaded out of their jobs wrongfully.

Everything in The Record about her fight to regain her job and her name has shown her seemingly to be not guilty of what she was accused and fired for.

Do some real homework and some justice to your profession. Trying people in the court of public opinion has been done to death, is dirty, and wrong.

Two, the Opinion page editorial, "Charter case legal, not right," states that Ralph Lee White is the "only person" in town who was troubled by the poorly written rule regarding the number of terms a person may serve on the City Council and as mayor.

When did The Record take that poll? I believe White has the same rights as anyone. Why didn't we ask if the city had not offered to settle with White by clarifying the words and intent once and for all instead of wasting our money?

David M. Jackson

Stockton

The New York Times reported President Obama's nominee to be the next secretary of Treasury, Jack Lew, has investments hidden offshore in the Cayman Islands.

Let's review, Obama's former Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, has had problems filing his tax returns and now Lew has been sheltering income from the tax man.

So it's bad for Mitt Romney to have offshore accounts, but it's OK for Obama supporters? If not for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.